ANTHONY XAVIER FERNADO Vs. DHANARAJ RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and possession.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows:

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the suit property an extent of 5 cents comprised in R.S.No.494 a/5B-2 Plot No.989 originally belonged to Rathina Sironmani Ammal. Both plaintiff and defendant trace their title only order the above Sironmani Ammal. It is the case of the [plaintiff that Sironmani Ammal orally sold the property to Guruvammal and that her son Rathinam sold the property in favour of one Subbarayalu under sale deed Ex.A-2 dated 23.12.1963 and that from the said Subbarayalu, he purchased the suit property under sale deed Ex.A-1 dated 9.12.1964 and that the plaintiff and his predecessor in title were in possession of the property by paying tax and kist etc. The defendant denies title of the plaintiff to the suit property. It is the case of the defendant that he, being the son of Sironmani Ammal, has got title to the property. The oral sale set up by the plaintiff is denied by the defendant. The trial court has held that the plaintiff has got title to the suit property and that the mother of the defendant lost title to the property after she sold the same to Guruvammal, The trial court has further held that the plaintiff was not in possession on the date of the suit and that the plaintiff has not acquired title by adverse possession. The trial court has also negatived the claim of the defendant has also negatived the claim of the defendant that he acquired title by adverse possession and that therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recovery possession, though he is not entitled to injunction, The appellate court did not accept the above findings of the trial court. The appellate court has held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he and his predecessor in title acquired title by adverse possession.